When I hold you in my arms
Oh yeah
And I put my finger on your trigger
oh yeah
And I know nobody can do me no harm
  Lennon -(Happiness is a warm gun)


He feels the piston scraping --
Steam breaking on his brow --
Thank God, he stole the handle and
The train won't stop going --
No way to slow down.

     Jethro Tull  (Locomotive Breath)


Greetings

      Looks like a winning approach.  After all natural gas is the bridge fuel to a cleaner future.  Even if it  it seemsthat wells are releasing plumes 100-1000 times what EPA estimated.   And it probably worse than coal according to this Cornell study.

     Meanwhile in Siberia - It's July in April!   At least as far as wildfires go.

-------------------

Vice President Joe Biden Promotes U.S. as Fracking Missionary Force On Ukraine Trip


During his two-day visit this week to Kiev, Ukraine, Vice President Joe Biden unfurled President Barack Obama's “U.S.Crisis Support Package for Ukraine.”

A key part of the package involves promoting the deployment of hydraulic fracturing (“fracking”) in Ukraine. Dean Neu, professor of accounting at York University in Toronto, describes this phenomenon in his book “Doing Missionary Work.” And in this case, it involves the U.S. acting as a modern-day missionary to spread the gospel of fracking to further its own interests.  

With the ongoing Russian occupation of Crimea serving as the backdrop for the trip, Biden made Vladimir Putin's Russia and its dominance of the global gas market one of the centerpieces of a key speech he gave while in Kiev.

“And as you attempt to pursue energy security, there’s no reason why you cannot be energy secure. I mean there isn’t. It will take time. It takes some difficult decisions, but it’s collectively within your power and the power of Europe and the United States,” Biden said.

“And we stand ready to assist you in reaching that. Imagine where you’d be today if you were able to tell Russia: Keep your gas. It would be a very different world you’d be facing today.”

The U.S. oil and gas industry has long lobbied to “weaponize” its fracking prowess to fend off Russian global gas market dominance. It's done so primarily in two ways.

One way: by transforming the U.S. State Department into a global promoter of fracking via its Unconventional Gas Technical Engagement Program (formerly the Global Shale Gas Initiative), which is a key, albeit less talked about, part of President Obama's “Climate Action Plan.”

The other way: by exporting U.S. fracked gas to the global market, namely EUcountries currently heavily dependent on Russia's gas spigot.

In this sense, the crisis in Ukraine — as Naomi Klein pointed out in a recent article — has merely served as a “shock doctrine” excuse to push through plans that were already long in the making. In other words, it's “old wine in a new bottle.”

Gas “Support Package” Details

Within the energy security section of the aid package, the White House promises in “the coming weeks, expert teams from several U.S. government agencies will travel to the region to help Ukraine meet immediate and longer term energy needs.”

That section contains three main things the U.S. will do to ensure U.S. oil and gas companies continue to profit during this geopolitical stand-off.

1) Help with pipelines and securing access to gas at the midstream level of production.

“Today, a U.S. interagency expert team arrived in Kyiv to help Ukraine secure reverse flows of natural gas from its European neighbors,” the White House fact sheet explains. “Reverse flows of natural gas will provide Ukraine with additional immediate sources of energy.”

2) Technical assistance to help boost conventional gas production in Ukraine. That is, gas obtained not from fracking and horizontal drilling, but via traditional vertical drilling.

As the White House explains, “U.S. technical experts will join with the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development and others in May to help Ukraine develop a public-private investment initiative to increase conventional gas production from existing fields to boost domestic energy supply.”

3) Shale gas missionary work.

“A technical team will also engage the government on measures that will help the Ukrainian government ensure swift and environmentally sustainable implementation of contracts signed in 2013 for shale gas development,” says the White House.

ExxonMobil Teaching Russia Fracking

Ironically, as the U.S. government teams up with the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development to teach Ukraine fracking in order to wean the country off of Russian gas, U.S.-based “private empire” ExxonMobil is doing the same work in Russia to help the country tap into its shale oil and gas bounty.

Among its myriad partnerships with the Russian oil and gas industry, ExxonMobilhas signed a joint venture in December 2013 with state-owned company Rosneft to help it tap the massive Bazhenov Shale basin.

“The JV will implement a pilot work program in order to assess and determine the technical possibility of developing the…Bazhenov formation…in Western Siberia,” reads a Rosneft press release. “The plan is to perform the pilot work program within 2013-2015 timeframe.”

Forbes has reported the Bazhenov is roughly 80 times the size of the Bakken Shale, already the biggest field by a long shot in the U.S. and one visible from outer space.

Climate Change Taboo

Traditionally, missionaries do charity work in service to humanity. But the enormous climate impact of fracking — given the climate change math — calls those doing the Lord's work in the shale gas sphere into question.

So in the case of the U.S. government and Ukraine, the concept of missionary work has been flipped on its head.

That is, the most profitable companies on the face of the planet — both in the U.S. and in Russia — are set to profit at the expense of everyone else, including the stability of earth's climate system.



http://desmogblog.com/2014/04/23/vice-president-joe-biden-promotes-u-s-fracking-missionary-force-during-ukraine-trip

Fire and Ice

Some say the world will end in fire

some say ice

- Robert Frost

I saw new history of time...
New history of time!!!

Through Siberian woods
Breaking up their neck

  -Gogol Bordello

Greetings

Here's something new from RobertScribbler, a good site for climate science explained.   Also interesting comments like this:

Watch ice berg 8 times the size of Manhatten break off 

http://www.livescience.com/44958-ice-island-b31-antarctica.html

---

Odds of storm waters overflowing Manhattan seawall up 20-fold

The newly recognized storm-tide increase means that New York is at risk of more frequent and extensive flooding than was expected due to sea-level rise alone, said Stefan Talke, an assistant professor of civil and environmental engineering at Portland State University in Portland, Ore. He is lead author of the new study accepted for publication in Geophysical Research Letters, a journal of the American Geophysical Union. The research also confirms that the New York harbor storm tide produced by Hurricane Sandy was the largest since at least 1821.

Tide gauge data analyzed in the study show that a major, “10-year” storm hitting New York City today causes bigger storm tides and potentially more damage than the identical storm would have in the mid-1800s. Specifically, Talke explained, there’s a 10 percent chance today that, in any given year, a storm tide in New York harbor will reach a maximum height of nearly two meters (about six and a half feet), the so-called “10-year storm.” In the mid-19th century, however, that maximum height was about 1.7 meters (about 5.6 feet), or nearly a foot lower than it is today, according to tide gauge data going back to 1844, he noted.

“What we are finding is that the 10-year storm tide of your great-, great-grandparents is not the same as the 10-year storm tide of today,” Talke said.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/04/140423132612.htm

-----

A Dangerous Dance of Frost and Flame: More Than 100 Wildfires Now Raging Along Siberian Melt-Freeze Line

Anomalous, global-warming-enhanced, fires continued to erupt across Eastern Russia this week, chasing a rapidly receding freeze line north and into zones still frozen, but starting to shake off ice cover far too soon for comfort.

According to reports from Radio Free Europe, more than 5,000 pieces of heavy equipment and many more firefighters are now battling blazes throughout Siberia this week. As of April 20th, more than 100 blazes were reported in numerous regions including: the Orenburg area around Lake Baikal, the Amur region, the Birobidzhan Autonomous Oblast, the Primorsky Krai, and the Far Eastern region of Russia.

(Multiple wildfires raging in the Amur region of Russia on April 23, 2014. Image source:LANCE-MODIS.)

The fires come as temperatures ranging from 5-18 C above average continued throughout a region that has experienced hotter than normal temperatures all winter and on into spring of 2014.

For example, the average April high temperature for the region of Lake Baikal is typically a frigid 28 F, while this week is expected to see highs in the lower to middle 40s. Further east, the temperature extremes are more radical. In Amur Blagoveshchensk, the average low is about 27 degrees F for this time of year, the average high, about 50. But today the low was 52 and the high is forecast to be 78 — 25 and 28 degrees above average respectively.

All across Eastern Russia, the story is the same: above average warmth, early thaw, summer-like temperatures in spring time. It has been this way day after day, month after month. Since 2010, the story has mostly been the same: early thaw, record or near record heat, amazing fire hazard. Even more concerning, the situation is steadily growing worse.

How Global Warming is Turning the Siberian Tundra into a Firetrap

Winters during cold regions are typically comparatively dry events. Though snows may pile up, the water content of the snows amount to much less moisture than it would seem. During spring, a gradual thaw ensures this moisture keeps the thin, top layer of soil above the permafrost (called the active layer) from drying out too rapidly. Typically only inches to a few feet in depth, this layer is far more susceptible to drying than a deeper layer with access to greater moisture sources at depth. But only frozen or melting permafrost currently rest below the active layer, creating a moisture barrier or worse — adding a potential fuel source for wildfires.

(Eastern Russia in a hot zone. Hot atmospheric ridge and coincident extreme temperature anomalies stretching from Southeast Asia, up through China and Eastern Russia and on up through the polar region. Information Source: NOAA Global Forecast Systems Model. Image source: University of Maine.)

In years of warmer than usual temperatures, as has happened more and more often under the current regime of human-caused warming, the thaw occurs rapidly and the active layer quickly dries out. This loss of moisture amplifies into a kind of tundra drought that can block atmospheric moisture flows and prevent rainfall, compounding the drying problem until the more energetic storms of summer arrive.

In addition, expanding zones of thawing permafrost provide two added fuel sources for wildfires. Tundra melt in high water content areas forms into wet thermokarsts, mires or melt ponds that vent methane gas in high enough concentration to burn. Tundra melt that rapidly dries after thaw forms into a peat-like basement layer that can burn and smolder for long periods once ignited.

On average, temperatures have been rising by about .4 C per decade throughout Siberia. So almost every spring now falls into what would typically be called a hot year. In addition, amplification of Jet Stream wave patterns deliver proportionately more heat to regions in the up-slope of these high amplitude atmospheric pulses, forming hot, high pressure ridges. And this year, the heat ridge has consistently formed over China, Mongolia and Eastern Siberia — the region of the current large fire outbreaks.

(Siberian wildfires burning on the shores of still-frozen Lake Baikal in southern Siberia on April 23, 2014. Image source: LANCE-MODIS.)

As a result, what we are seeing is an extraordinary outbreak of intense wildfires directly adjacent to still melting snow and frozen lakes. A surreal event that reminds one of the ever-at-war frost and fire giants of ancient Viking legend. But these giants, the fire giants at least, are a direct result of an ongoing and ever increasing human-caused heating of our world.

Links:

Radio Free Europe

University of Maine

NOAA Global Forecast Systems Model

LANCE-MODIS

Melting Permafrost Switches to Nasty, High-Gear Methane Release

Blagoveshchensk Weather

Lake Baikal Weather

Earth Under Fire

Religion and Politics

A red necked nerd in a bowling shirt

was drinking a lone star beer

spouting religion and politics

for all the world to hear

   -Kinky Fieidman (They Ain't Making Jews Like Jesus Anymore)

Greetings

     I just listened to an interesting pod cast on Ecoshock.  concerning the interplay of religion and climate change politics.  It seems that some fossil fuel interest have linked up with evangelicals preachers and are putting out some  wild propaganda.   Here's one on the menace of environmentalism,  called "The Green Dragon"

      On the other side, is a preacher named Michael Dowd, who is interviewed on the show.  He accepts evolution, and climate change, and in fact most of what science has to offer.  But he also thinks its morally wrong to destroy the econ system!    He is working hard to raise awareness on climate change by speaking in churches along the route of the Great March For Climate Action.

Here is the interview

---------

It's not the end of the world

we can live beside the ocean
linger far behind
swim out past the breaker
watch the world die

  -Everclear (Santa Monica)

Greetings

    Things must be looking pretty bad if a "doomer" like Kingsnorth gets a spot in the NYT Sunday mag!    

            The sad fact is that we are going past 2 degrees.  (In about 20 years, according to Dr hockey stiock - Michael Mann)  We missed the boat on that.   So, we need to deal with it.  The future isn't what we'd hoped for.  Its going to be a mess.  Its not the end of the world, though.

      Perhaps "giving up hope" is a step toward dealing with reality

Here's another take:

Clive Hamilton in his “Requiem for a Species: Why We Resist the Truth About Climate Change” describes a dark relief that comes from accepting that “catastrophic climate change is virtually certain.” This obliteration of “false hopes,” he says, requires an intellectual knowledge and an emotional knowledge. The first is attainable. The second, because it means that those we love, including our children, are almost certainly doomed to insecurity, misery and suffering within a few decades, if not a few years, is much harder to acquire. To emotionally accept impending disaster, to attain the gut-level understanding that the power elite will not respond rationally to the devastation of the ecosystem, is as difficult to accept as our own mortality. The most daunting existential struggle of our time is to ingest this awful truth—intellectually and emotionally—and continue to resist the forces that are destroying us.

http://www.truthdig.com/report/print/the_myth_of_human_progress_20130113

-----

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/20/magazine/its-the-end-of-the-world-as-we-know-it-and-he-feels-fine.html

Justified!

Heaven help me for the way I am 
Save me from these evil deeds 
Before I get them done 
I know tomorrow brings the consequence 
At hand 
But I keep livin' this day like 
The next will never come 

  -Fiona Apple (Criminal)

Do I contradict myself? Very well, then I contradict myself, I am large, I contain multitudes.

      -Walt Whitman

Greetings

     Robert Rapier offers some interesting comments on the Exxon's evaluation of the likelihood of stranded assets. 

      He takes a few good pokes at all of us, and our justifications for doing what we do, and points out that Exxon can basically say the same.

"Those of us who are concerned about climate change – and I include myself in that group – all justify our consumption of oil in different ways. We either reason that our individual contribution won’t make that much difference, and what we would have to sacrifice to live without oil isn’t proportional to the miniscule impact on the environment from our single contribution. Or, we reason that we do what we can to minimize our personal consumption, but by using oil to travel around to urge others to limit consumption (the Al Gore/Bill McKibben sort of justification), our net impact will be lower oil consumption.

The thing is, ExxonMobil can argue exactly the same points. First of all, oil is a very small contributor relative to coal (and coal consumption is for me a very different argument), and ExxonMobil is a small percentage of global oil production. So ExxonMobil can make the argument “our impact just isn’t that great”, just as individuals do.

               But more interestingly, he reframes the issue this way : Oil is different than coal.    Its different in a number of ways - but most importantly - there is no substitute for oil.  There are lots of ways of making electricity, including ways that emit little or no CO2,  ways that can be integrated into the existing infrastructure.    But you can't say that about oil.  Bio fuels, come closest, but they can't be built out without impacting the food market.  Electric cars, hydrogen cars, NG cars- they all require a very different system.

     So, when Exxon is asked "Do you think that your assets might be stranded?"  They can say "No.   Even if we assume a high carbon tax - people will still buy oil."  

But as my friend Geoffrey Styles points out in his take on the issue, ExxonMobil does model “its projects and acquisitions at proxy costs of up to $80/ton of CO2, compared to current levels of $8-10/ton in the EU’s Emission Trading System.” And even though they believe governments are unlikely to adopt such high carbon prices, even 10 times the current value of carbon dioxide emissions in the EU is unlikely to strand Exxon’s petroleum assets because there just isn’t a good substitute.

 

For instance, it's very easy for a electricity consumer to purchase wind power for some or all of their electric needs.  See here    Very easy!    As I recall about 10% of PGE customers do so.      Try to switch your  transportation   to no or low carbon.   Not quite as easy!  

   ( For an interesting exploration of hydrogen  and infrastructure required, and why the artificial leaf can't get off the ground - see The Artificial Leaf Is Here Again )

        

-----

How Do You Justify Consuming ExxonMobil’s Oil?

Introduction

Sometimes the written word is easy to misinterpret. More than once I have written an article to find that some minor point I made became the focus, or that the point I was making was just lost. Most of the time that’s my fault, but sometimes it’s because an editor wanted to spice up the title and make it a bit more controversial. In that case, that can inflame the reader before they even begin to read, and they either make comments based on a misleading title, or they read the article with significant bias.

I think there is a risk of misinterpretation with today’s article, so I want to spell out my intent up front. This should not be read as a defense of ExxonMobil or their business practices, because that’s not what it is. It’s an attempt to get the reader to understand how they think, and why they do some of the things they do. Importantly, you may not be able to understand their actions given your view of the world. It’s not because they are simply denying reality so they can keep making money, they just don’t see the same things you see. Here is my attempt to explain that.

A Carbon Asset Bubble?

The 2009 Copenhagen Accord on climate change stipulated that if the worst impacts of climate change are to be avoided, we have to stop taking fossil fuels from the ground and burning them. Doing so has been increasing the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere for the past two centuries. Former Vice President Al Gore has been but one high profile voice advocating for leaving those fossil fuels in the ground, which would create a big problem for fossil fuel companies whose value is based on their fossil fuel reserves. Gore outlined his position last year in a Wall Street Journal editorial The Coming Carbon Asset Bubble.

This is obviously an item of significant interest for fossil fuel companies and their shareholders. In fact, in February several investor groups filed shareholder resolutions with 10 fossil fuel companies, including ExxonMobil (NYSE: XOM), Chevron (NYSE: CVX), Devon Energy (NYSE: DVN), Kinder Morgan (NYSE: KMI) and Peabody Energy (NYSE: BTU), seeking an assessment of how they are preparing for the possibility that some of their fossil fuel reserves may become stranded under a low-carbon scenario.

ExxonMobil Responds

ExxonMobil responded to these resolutions with a 30-page report. The company indicated that its investment decisions are based on a comprehensive annual analysis of the global outlook for energy that is consistent with the International Energy Agency’s (IEA) World Energy Outlook and the US Energy Information Administration’s (EIA) Annual Energy Outlook. In other words, investment decisions are not simply based on the world according to ExxonMobil, but also on the world energy outlook from the US government and the IEA, which represents 28 member countries (including the US).

The report states that ExxonMobil takes the threat of climate change seriously, a point reiterated by ExxonMobil government affairs chief Ken Cohen in an Associated Press interview following the paper’s release. “We know enough based on the research and science that the risk (of climate change) is real and appropriate steps should be taken to address that risk,” Cohen said.

I am not going to get into the gist of the report here, except to summarize ExxonMobil’s position, which is: “World demand for oil will continue to be very strong, and our oil reserves will not be stranded.” If you want to know the basis for their argument, it’s laid out in the report.

ExxonMobil Answers the Wrong Question

Those pushing for the resolution didn’t like that answer. While acknowledging that responding was a step in the right direction, Natasha Lamb, director of equity research at Arjuna Capital, stated: “The question is not whether or not we’ll face the low carbon standard, but whether they are prepared to address it. We need to know what’s at stake. But at least now investors know that Exxon is not addressing the low carbon scenario and placing investor capital at risk.”

With all due respect, that might not have been the question you asked, but if ExxonMobil doesn’t believe it’s a credible scenario, then they aren’t going to spend a lot of time and money addressing it. As an example, how much time do you spend each day planning how you will spend your lottery winnings? If you aren’t spending any time, you will be totally unprepared for winning the lottery. Oh, you don’t spend that much time on it because you don’t believe the outcome is likely? You may fantasize about what you would do if you won the lottery, but you don’t spend a lot of time each day making financial plans based on that outcome.

Likewise, I can assure you with 100 percent certainty that ExxonMobil is spending some efforts on alternatives to oil. It’s not a lot relative to their overall business, but it’s relative to how likely they think demand is shifting away from oil. And if demand starts to shift, they will shift their spending to try to capture where the markets are headed.

That’s how oil companies operate in the real world, and not in the cartoon world many people think they inhabit. People view them through different lenses and see their own projections, but the reality is that ExxonMobil has seen a future in which oil continues to be the basis for transportation (as does the EIA and IEA), and they have been correct in that view since they have been in existence.

But that doesn’t mean they can’t change. It just means that the catalyst for change isn’t necessarily YOUR view that their oil reserves will be stranded. Which brings me to my final point, which is reflected in the title of this essay.

Cognitive Dissonance

With some extremely rare exceptions, the people who brought those resolutions forward that demanded to know how ExxonMobil would cope with leaving their oil reserves in the ground – all of them use oil. My point is not to argue hypocrisy, but rather the cognitive dissonance at play.

Those of us who are concerned about climate change – and I include myself in that group – all justify our consumption of oil in different ways. We either reason that our individual contribution won’t make that much difference, and what we would have to sacrifice to live without oil isn’t proportional to the miniscule impact on the environment from our single contribution. Or, we reason that we do what we can to minimize our personal consumption, but by using oil to travel around to urge others to limit consumption (the Al Gore/Bill McKibben sort of justification), our net impact will be lower oil consumption.

The thing is, ExxonMobil can argue exactly the same points. First of all, oil is a very small contributor relative to coal (and coal consumption is for me a very different argument), and ExxonMobil is a small percentage of global oil production. So ExxonMobil can make the argument “our impact just isn’t that great”, just as individuals do.

But oil also has few viable substitutes relative to coal. So ExxonMobil can reason that their relative contribution to climate change is very low, while the impact of affordable transportation for people is great. They can further argue (and did in the response to the shareholder resolution) that they are doing what they can to lower their environmental impact.

So just keep in mind that if you want to press ExxonMobil to leave their oil in the ground, you are on thin ice when it comes to arguing why it’s then OK for you to use the oil they produce. If you use oil, you are part of the reason ExxonMobil continues to profit from producing the oil. If you really want them to leave their oil in the ground, convince everyone to stop using it, and do so yourself. Then the asset will be stranded. But you aren’t going to have much luck stranding the asset when demand continues to grow. Every time you justify your oil consumption, ExxonMobil justifies producing more oil.

But as my friend Geoffrey Styles points out in his take on the issue, ExxonMobil does model “its projects and acquisitions at proxy costs of up to $80/ton of CO2, compared to current levels of $8-10/ton in the EU’s Emission Trading System.” And even though they believe governments are unlikely to adopt such high carbon prices, even 10 times the current value of carbon dioxide emissions in the EU is unlikely to strand Exxon’s petroleum assets because there just isn’t a good substitute.

Conclusions

In my view, the relative benefit of future oil consumption is far greater than the relative benefit of future coal consumption, because oil has fewer potential substitutes. There are many different ways of producing electricity at a price that is competitive with coal, but with lower emission of carbon dioxide. In a low carbon emission scenario, the lion’s share of the reduction effort should be directed at coal. Coal is a much larger relative contributor, and there are potential replacements.

Thus, I think ExxonMobil gave a reasonable answer in saying that it has looked at the risks, and doesn’t believe any of its reserves are likely to be stranded. There are no alternatives capable of supplanting oil as the main global transportation fuel in the foreseeable future. There will continue to be contributions from biofuels, and electric transportation will continue to make inroads, but crude will continue to do the heavy lifting.

Link to Original Article: How Do You Justify Consuming ExxonMobil’s Oil?

You can find Robert Rapier on Twitter, LinkedIn, or Facebook.

IPCC Plan B - Suck It Up

Smoke in the water

Fire in the sky

   -Deep Purple

They're trying to wash us away

 -Randy Newman (Louisiana)

Greetings 

      Here's a twist.  We're shooting for "under 450".   But it that doesn't work., may be we could overshoot it by a bit, and then  go "carbon negative" for a while, and get back to 450.

    How to go "carbon negative"  -   Good old CCS - Carbon capture and Storage.   Or the bio-fuels version  - BECCS.   Se  New Scientist article (below)

    Sounds pretty good?

    Maybe not.  Nafeez Ahmed suggests that the idea is not well thought out.

Dr Smolker of Biofuelwatch, in contrast, said that the IPCC's central emphasis on biofuels with carbon capture is a "dangerous distraction" from the task of "deeply altering our entire relationship to energy consumption." She highlighted an unwillingness to recognize the "fundamental link between 'endless growth economics' and ecological destruction."

"The underlying assumption appears to be that business as usual [BAU] economic growth must be sustained, and industry and corporate profits must be protected and maintained. But if we focus on 'BAU economics', seeking and accepting only bargain basement options for addressing global warming - the costs will be far more severe."  

   

------
No option left but to suck CO2 out of air, says IPCC

16:47 14 April 2014 by Fred Pearce
For similar stories, visit the Climate Change Topic Guide

It is a beguiling idea: grow crops that suck carbon dioxide from the air, burn them to generate electricity, then bury the resulting CO2. The result? Less CO2 in the air, and less climate change.

This idea's time has come. The new report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), published on Sunday in Berlin, Germany, says "widespread" use of bioenergy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS) will probably be needed to stop the world warming by 2 °C, the politically agreed danger threshold.

That reflects the urgency of the situation. After 20 years of talk, the world is still accelerating towards climate catastrophe. Emissions grew faster between 2000 and 2010 than in each of the three previous decades.

The IPCC blames economic growth, which now adds twice as much to emissions as population growth does. (The report does not cover the years since 2010, when emissions may have risen more slowly despite continued economic growth.)

The heart of the report is a study of over 1000 scenarios of possible energy and climate futures. It lays out what scientists believe it will take to keep global warming below 2 °C this century. Achieving a better-than-even chance will probably mean at least tripling the proportion of energy coming from low-carbon sources, it says.

The key is to generate electricity without emitting CO2. Low-carbon sources currently provide 30 per cent of electricity, mostly from dams and nuclear power. That must rise to 80 per cent by 2050, with solar panels and wind turbines coming to the fore. New forms of solar will also play a role .

"Mitigation does not mean the world has to sacrifice economic growth," saysOttmar Edenhofer of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research in Germany, who co-chaired the report. But the burning of fossil fuel must virtually end by 2100, unless the emissions are buried using carbon capture and storage(CCS).

The report is neutral about nuclear power because of issues with nuclear waste, safety, proliferation and public image. But it does support natural gas as a "bridge technology" to replace coal until renewables take over or CCS becomes widespread.

Other cost-effective changes cited in the report include massive boosts to energy efficiency in industry and home heating, and reducing transport emissions through more efficient vehicles, more compact cities and more high-speed rail to cut air miles.

That's the right idea, says Brian Hoskins of the Grantham Institute for Climate Change in London. "We already have the technologies," he says. "We should stop wringing our hands and just get on with it."

Keeping below a 2 °C rise probably means keeping CO2 concentrations in the air below 450 parts per million. We are already up from a pre-industrial 280 ppm to400 ppm. Most scenarios the IPCC examined overshot 450 ppm and required recovery through "negative emissions" – BECCS, or some other CO2-sucking technology – later this century. CCS could be risky, but we may have no choice, the IPCC says.

The report should galvanise the UN negotiators who are drafting a global climate deal to be signed next year. But the hottest topic from the report may be its backing for negative emissions and CCS. It was published in Germany, a country with geology, climate policies and skills that make it an ideal test bed for the technology (see "German energy crisis points towards climate solution"). But the German public hates CCS. Last week Jochen Flasbarth, state secretary at Germany's federal environment ministry, told New Scientist that buried CO2 is seen as almost as bad as nuclear waste.

Read more: Climate report 2014: Your guide to the big questions

"At night we ride through mansions of glory

 in suicide machines"

   - Bruce Springsteen (Born to Run)

Greetings

      I suppose its only natural that thinking about resource limits and climate weirding would make me think about beer and wine.    

    Mostly about yeast 

      Any of you whole has the pleasure of making your own beer or wine know, that our friends the yeasts work hard to turn sugar into alcohol.  The multiply like crazy, until they hit "peak yeast", then they go to works converting the sugars, and a week or so later, presto.  

       In beer, the yeast hit a resource limit  (no more sugar), and quit.  Happily for them, they are still in a benign environment, so they survive, albeit in a "resting state".  With wine, the yeast create a situation in which even they cannot survive.  Alcohol levels get to be too high..  They created their own toxic environment. 

      We humans are using up the resources as fast as we can.   "Peak humans" is probably not that far away.   According to the "Reference run" on World 3 , peak humans occurs around 2030 at around 7 billion.  It is preceded by "peak food" when appears to peak around 2015. 

     One wonders whether we will leave behind a toxic environment.   .   

-------

     

    Here's an article on farmers in California, buying up well drilling equipment in the race for groundwater.  Well Drilling Boom

"Smittcamp said he worries that so much drilling could cause underground water supplies to run dry in little more than a decade. He blames politicians for failing to give farmers any other options, leaving them to fend for themselves.

This summer, Smittcamp said he has to come up with two-thirds of his water that would normally come from the state and federal water deliveries.

"This year, we get none out of the projects," he said. "So we've got to pump the whole enchilada."

-----

Speaking of food He's some interesting stats on food production in Russia and Ukraine.   

Ukraine currently stands as the 6th largest wheat exporter. Total production was about 16 million tons during 2012 putting it in the 11th largest producer spot worldwide. Over a four year period, from 2009 to 2012, production had remained about level, fluctuating between about 16 and 22 million metric tons. Although, it’s worth noting that drought years 2010 and 2012 were both 16 million ton years respectively.

Russia, on the other hand, has seen steadily declining grain production over the period. Wheat production in 2009 was 61 million metric tons while wheat production in 2012 had fallen to 38 million metric tons. From 2010 to 2012, Russia experienced a series of extreme heat and fire seasons that disrupted food production, ruining large swaths of farmlands.

Note that the 2010 Russian wheat disruption occurred during an el Nino.  World Meteorological Organization now predicts an El Nino for 2014

--------

World Food Security Slides into Red Zone as FAO Index Jumps to 213, Russian Special Forces Continue to Destabilize Breadbasket Ukraine, and Climate-Change Induced Extreme Weather Ravages Croplands

Feeling impacts from a broad range of stresses including widespread heat and drought from the US West, to South America, to Australia and Southeast Asia, the ongoing Russian invasion and destabilization of breadbasket Ukraine, and the growing threat of a strong El Nino emerging in the Pacific, world food prices made another significant jump during March of 2014.

According to the UN Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), global food index prices surged from a value of 208 in February to 212.8 in March. The 4.8 point increase from February to March followed on the heels of a 5.5 point increase between January and February.

Values above 210 are considered to result in enough stress to ignite conflict as an increasing number of regions begin to see scarcity from lack of ability to purchase or produce food. For the time being, these prices remain below the 2011 high water mark of 229 which was linked to a broad eruption of conflict and food riots from Libya to Egypt to Syria and throughout a smattering of other impoverished or vulnerable regions in Asia and around the globe.

But with the world climate situation worsening, with chances for a strong El Nino emerging later this year increasing, and with global conflict over dwindling and endangered stores of food-related wealth and resources intensifying, there remains a substantial risk that global food prices will continue to see strong upward pressure throughout 2014, pushing and maintaining levels high enough to continue to ignite instability, unrest and, in some cases, open warfare.

(The first episode of Showtime’s “Years of Living Dangerously” provides a close look at two regions suffering directly from crop losses, economic impacts and hunger due to extreme droughts related to climate change — Syria and the US Southwest. It provides a view, in close-up of what happens due to years-long droughts and related food and resource shortages. In the US, loss of grazing land resulted in the closing of meat packing plants supporting local workers and in severe stress to communities even as religion and political beliefs impeded an effective response to the rising crisis. In Syria, a ten year drought spurred armed revolution against a government that turned a blind eye to the needs of its suffering citizens.)

Global Hot Spots

Western US: March saw a brief weakening of the, now 13 month long, blocking high pressure system off the US west coast. This slight interlude unleashed an extraordinary surge of Pacific Ocean moisture that set off record floods and one-day rainfall events throughout Northern California, Washington and Oregon. Pulses of moisture did briefly touch the US Southwest, but the Jet Stream configuration had shifted somewhat northward, resulting in less water relief for the most drought stressed zones.

(The April 8 US Drought Monitor shows drought continuing to intensify over the US despite some moisture reaching affected areas.)

As a result, the epic California drought is probably still the worst seen in 500 years and is now likely to intensify and/or persist on into late this fall. By April 1, snow cover had fallen to 25% of a typical average for the Sierra Nevada. Combined drought and water shortages have led to an unprecedented complete cut off of federal water supplies to many local farmers. In addition, Silicon Valley, has been forced to ration its drinking water supply.

Meanwhile, sections of Texas have experienced their driest 42 month period since record-keeping began in 1911. Regions near Lubbock received only 33 inches of rainfall in the three and a half year period since October of 2010. A normal rainfall for this zone would be around 64 inches for the same time-frame. This makes the current 4+ year Texas drought worse than any previous dry time during the 20th Century, including the Dust Bowl period of the 1930s.

With the emergence of spring, a typical post-winter dry period will likely be enhanced by a continued formation of a powerful dome high pressure system blocking moisture flow to California and the US Southwest. In addition, amplified heat in the up-slope of a high amplitude Jet Stream wave will likely drive drought conditions to rapidly worsen as spring runs into summer. Sadly, the primary hope for moisture comes from the emergence of El Nino, which is becoming more and more likely for later this year. However, if the El Nino comes on as strong as expected, rainfall events are likely to be extraordinarily intense, ripping away top soil from the likely fire-damaged zones and making it difficult for water planners to capture and store water due to its velocity. In the worst case, Ark Storm-like conditions could emerge due to a massive heat and moisture dump that could result in very intense rivers of moisture forming over western regions.

Brazil: Ever since 2005, Brazil has been suffering from a series of persistent drought episodes. By this year, the nine year long drought series reached an ominous peak. Like California, this drought series is now likely the worst seen in decades and possibly as far back as 500 years. The result was widespread fires and blackouts throughout Brazil together with extreme impacts to farm production. Particularly hard hit were coffee and sugar production, sending prices for both markets rocketing to record or near-record levels.

(South American rainfall anomalies from Jan 23 to February 24, 2014. Image source: CPC Unified.)

Indonesia and Southeast Asia: From Thailand to Malaysia to Indonesia, drought resulted in significant reductions in palm oil production, a main crop for the region. Throughout March and into April large fires were reported over a wide drought-stricken zone even as smoke choked both cities and countryside. Some of the fires were suspected to have been illegally set by large palm oil conglomerates seeking to clear new land for an ever-expanding set of palm oil plantations. But the plantations may now be in danger of a drought fed by both their destructive practices of land-clearing and by their overall contribution to an extraordinary and excessive global greenhouse gas overburden.

(MODIS shot of widespread fires near the Malacca Strait during March of 2014. Image source:LANCE-MODIS.)

Drought related heat and fires not only threatened crops but also resulted in multiple school closings, numerous dangerous air warnings, thousands of calls reporting peat fires and, in Indonesia alone, more than 20,000 people hospitalized for respiratory problems.

The Ukraine and Russia: An ever-more expansionist Russia’s invasion of the Ukraine also resulted in higher food prices as speculators purchased grain stores over projections that Russian forces could disrupt Urkaine’s food production and exports. First phase invasion into the Crimea did not block key grain ports. But tens of thousands of troops massed along the Ukraine border and likely continued incursions by Russian special forces units into Eastern Ukraine resulted in an ongoing destabilization of one of the world’s key grain producers.

In this context, it is worth noting that global harvest figures showed Russian wheat production falling from 61 million metric tons per year in 2009 to 38 million metric ton per year in 2012. Throughout this four-year period, Russia has been forced to curtail or cut off grain exports on numerous occasions as increasing periods of drought, fire and extreme weather resulted in loss of crops.

Meanwhile, wildfire season began early in Siberian Russia perhaps presaging a fire season that, when combined with the effects of an emerging El Nino, could be the worst seen since 2010 when Russia first cut off grain exports to the rest of the world.

Global Problem: Though the above list provides examples of where global food supply is most threatened by extreme weather related to climate change and/or a related set of conflicts over resources, it is important to note that the current food, resource, and climate crisis is now global in nature. Droughts and severe weather have left almost no region untouched and now result in substantial damage to crops at least once a year in even the most tranquil locations. Instances of ongoing and systemic drought are now common throughout various areas not mentioned above including: Australia, China, South America, Central America, The Middle East, Africa, India, and sections of Russia and Europe. So though blows to important “bread baskets” provide the most impact to overall food price and availability, a general state of agricultural disruption due to increasingly extreme climates blanketing the globe result in a far more challenging than usual base-line for food producers and consumers everywhere.

Links:

FAO: World Food Situation

US Drought Monitor

LANCE-MODIS

CPC Unified

El Nino Update: Monster Kelvin Wave Continues to Emerge in the Pacific

Monster El Nino Emerging From the Depths

Thirsty West: Where’s the Snow?

Persistent Drought Still Reigns in Much of Texas

Arkstorm: California’s Other Big One